Found it on Facebook — ranking Constitutional rights

For copy right reasons, I can’t produce the image here, but I can describe the cartoon that Joel Pett drew. It shows two young, earth-mother types sitting at a coffee shop. One is reading a newspaper with a headline stating “Restrictive abortion laws.” She turns to her friend and says “I’ve changed my mind… We may well need high-capacity fire arms to protect our rights…”

This cartoon is wrong at two very profound levels. The first thing that’s wrong is the constitution hierarchy. In the cartoonist’s world, which is the Left’s world, the lower ranked right in the Constitution is the Second Amendment, despite the fact that the Founders came up with it and the fact that it explicitly states that nothing and nobody can infringe in any way on the People’s right to bear arms. For Pett and his crowd, it’s still subordinate to a “right” that doesn’t show up anywhere in the Constitution but that is, instead, a judge-made emanation of a penumbra of an inference. He could just as easily have had his cartoon character state “I will reluctantly, and temporarily, support an explicit right in order to kill those who would try to deny me a “right” that can only generously be called implicit.”

The second reason that the cartoon is profoundly wrong is because it essentially advocates a sickening world view. It says that the right to kill a fetus is so overarching that it’s okay to drag out a stale, old, white-men created Bill of Rights doctrine in order to enable abortion supporters to kill their opponents.

The same people who protest against the death penalty (which is also explicitly acknowledged in the Bill of Rights, provided that it is neither cruel or unusual), believe that the judge-made right to kill fetuses should be reinforced by killing those who oppose killing fetuses.

As always, I’ll pause here to say that I remain somewhat ambivalent about abortion. I recognize circumstances where it is appropriate, and I still can’t entirely shake my old pro-Choice leanings. Nevertheless, I continue to be sickened by the way in which the Left advances abortion. You cannot have an honest debate on the subject without acknowledging that the fetus is a life, and then further acknowledging that society has always recognized instances in which one life is allowed to trump another. That’s a worthy debate. The game the Left plays, however, is disgusting. “I’ll see (or rather, ignore) your Constitutional rights and raise you two mob rules. Hah! I win.”

Progressives do not believe in the rule of law; it is too restrictive. In fact, whatever they believe in at any given moment is subject to change and you are a fascist if you are not nimble enough to keep up.

Besides Margaret Sanger, who warmly embraced the idea of Life Not Worthy of Life, their philosophy depends heavily on John Dewey, a founder of modern educational. Dewey’s philosophy taught that truth is an instrument used by human beings to solve their problems. Since problems change, then so must truth. Since problems change, truth changes, and therefore there can be no eternal reality.

The Constitution may be subject to change by amendment but that process is not responsive enough to adapt to their current truths.

Writing this blog is a labor of love. However, if you'd like to donate money for my efforts, please feel free to do so: